Speaker Mike Johnson is on track to avoid his fourth government shutdown this week, and conservatives are not happy about it.
With little say on what actually goes into the latest spending bill and few policy wins to point to, Johnson’s far-right flank has focused on a new sticking point: They won’t have time to read the legislation.
“They don’t like you to have time to review a bill that they know the American people aren’t going to love,” said Texas Rep. Chip Roy, a House Freedom Caucus member.
Johnson will once again have to rely on a bipartisan majority to get the spending bill through the House. With the deadline to avert a shutdown Friday night, he’ll have to waive the 72-hour rule to get it done or risk a lapse in funding.
None of the conservatives complaining about how much time they’d have to read the bill would end up voting for it anyway, but without other leverage, complaining is about as much as they can do.
“The Republican Party believes in the idea that you review legislation before you vote on it, and the 72-hour custom tradition is something we maintain,” Johnson told reporters on Wednesday. “We’re talking about how to expedite it as quickly as possible but also allow all the members to have an adequate time to review the legislation.”
Conservatives know that the appropriations negotiations are now set in stone, and leadership is eager to put the process behind them. However, as a final stand against the last six bills, some Republicans are prodding Johnson for one more continuing resolution, pushing a vote to April after Congress is out for two weeks.
Johnson insisted that a continuing resolution wouldn’t be necessary and hoped to have a vote on Friday.
Roy and HFC Chair Bob Good, along with 41 Republican colleagues, signed a letter urging others to vote against the bill for what they see as inadequate border provisions.
Like Roy, South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman is a definite no, regardless of the vote’s timing. But he doesn’t see less than a 72-hour window as a long enough time frame for members to actually read the text.
“If we don’t have the time to read something like this, then we don’t need to be voting on it,” he said.
With Democratic support and a majority of Republicans in favor, Johnson theoretically has managed enough votes for the spending bill, leaving conservatives with little leverage.
Given that, do these members see any fallback for leadership for waiving the 72 hours Republicans have pushed so hard to uphold?
“There don’t seem to be any consequences for anything,” Rep. Thomas Massie said.
Massie said he’s a firm no on the bill, as he was with the first package. Even though his mind is made up, he said it’s important to have the full three days to examine the approved earmarks.
“I need 72 hours to help people know what’s actually in the bill,” Massie said.
But claims from the most outspoken conservatives that there isn’t time to read the legislation are being met with doubt by Republicans on board.
“There’s some people in conference talking about how they don’t know what’s in the bill, yet they talked about what’s in the bill,” said Rep. Dan Meuser. “They’re going through details of the bill and what they don’t like, and then meanwhile, they turn around and say they haven’t had access to the language.”
Sign up for the latest from NOTUS.
Florida Rep. Greg Steube said he “obviously” doesn’t support the bill, citing a lack of border provisions. He’s frustrated by Republican leadership’s approach to appropriations and that they’ve negotiated with Democrats. He disagrees with the members of his own party who are “deathly afraid of shutting down the government,” saying they’re throwing away leverage to get a better deal.
Despite all of his agreement with conservatives, he wants to vote no and move ahead.
“We’ve been doing CRs my entire time here. I won’t support any more CRs,” Steube said.
Across the ideological spectrum of the Republican conference, most members feel it’s time to leave the fiscal year 2024 spending bills — finally — behind.
“We have an agreement, and it’s time to bring this to a close and move on,” New York Rep. Mike Lawler said. “For those that want to vote just no, vote no, and move on.”
—
Nuha Dolby is a NOTUS reporter and an Allbritton Journalism Institute fellow. Katherine Swartz is a NOTUS reporter and an Allbritton Journalism Institute fellow.